How does Acts 2:13 challenge the authenticity of the apostles' message? Text “Some, however, mocked them and said, ‘They are drunk on new wine!’ ” (Acts 2:13). Immediate Literary Setting Luke has just recorded the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Jews “from every nation under heaven” (v. 5) hear the apostles miraculously speaking in their native languages (vv. 6-11). The crowd responds with both amazement (v. 12) and ridicule (v. 13). Verse 13 functions as the first recorded public objection to apostolic proclamation. Nature of the Objection: ‘New Wine’ “New wine” (γλεύκους) refers to partially fermented, sweet grape juice whose low alcohol content would make intoxication in the early morning (see v. 15) implausible. The accusation is therefore flippant, not evidential, intended to dismiss rather than explain the phenomenon. Its presence in the narrative supplies an authentic echo of street-level skepticism. Challenge 1: Questioning Apostolic Credibility Charging the speakers with drunkenness attacks their rational capacity. If the apostles were impaired, their claims about Jesus’ resurrection and fulfillment of prophecy could be ignored. The objection aims at credibility, not at factual refutation. Challenge 2: Naturalizing the Supernatural By attributing glossolalia to intoxication, the mockers attempt to reduce a miraculous sign to a mundane cause. This is the perennial maneuver of antisupernatural criticism—explaining away divine intervention by appealing to ordinary phenomena (cf. Exodus 7:12; Matthew 28:13-15). Challenge 3: Public Skepticism as Falsification Test Luke’s inclusion of hostile reaction signals historiographic integrity. Embedding real-time skepticism offers the reader a built-in falsification test: were the apostles simply drunk, the crowd would not have heard coherent dialects “speaking of the mighty works of God” (v. 11). The mixed response functions as an internal criterion of authenticity often labeled “embarrassment”; writers inventing propaganda seldom highlight ridicule of their own heroes. Peter’s Refutation (Acts 2:14-21) 1. Time-Stamp: “It is only the third hour of the day” (v. 15, ~9 a.m.), when Jews at a feast had not yet eaten, much less drunk wine. 2. Scriptural Coherence: He interprets the tongues through Joel 2:28-32, anchoring the event in prophetic expectation and shifting the audience from accusation to exposition. 3. Christ-Centered Fulfillment: The Spirit’s outpouring is presented as evidence of Jesus’ exaltation (v. 33), linking miracle, prophecy, and resurrection. Historical Corroboration of Acts’ Setting Archaeological data confirm the cosmopolitan population of Jerusalem at feasts. First-century inscriptions list Jews from regions matching Luke’s geography (vv. 9-11). Excavations at the southern steps near the Temple—where thousands could gather—support the plausibility of a large hearer base for Peter’s sermon and subsequent baptisms (v. 41). Pattern of Prophetic Mockery Biblical precedent shows divine messengers habitually mocked: Noah (2 Peter 3:3-6), Elisha (2 Kings 2:23), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:7). Jesus Himself was charged with insanity and demonic possession (Mark 3:21-22; John 10:20). Acts 2:13 thus situates the apostles within the prophetic tradition, reinforcing rather than diminishing their legitimacy. Philosophical Implications: Evidential Thresholds The verse highlights differing prior plausibilities: observers predisposed to reject supernatural agency reinterpret evidence to fit naturalistic categories. The resurrection faces analogous dismissal (“they stole the body,” Matthew 28:13). The same epistemic dynamics operate today when modern skeptics cite psychological or sociological explanations for religious experience. Theological Significance Pentecost is not invalidated by ridicule; rather, the Spirit empowers bold proclamation despite it (cf. Acts 4:31). Mockery fulfills Jesus’ warning that the world would hate His witnesses (John 15:18-21). Opposition therefore confirms, not cancels, the authenticity of the apostolic mission. Conclusion Acts 2:13 momentarily challenges apostolic authenticity by imputing drunkenness, but the very accusation: • Provides an historically credible antagonist voice, strengthening Luke’s reliability. • Sets the stage for Peter’s reasoned, Scripture-saturated rebuttal. • Demonstrates that miraculous events remained open to public scrutiny. • Aligns the apostles with the prophetic pattern of being scorned, thereby validating their role in redemptive history. Far from undermining the gospel, the mockery in Acts 2:13 underscores the veracity of the supernatural events it attempts to dismiss, inviting every reader to weigh the evidence afresh and, like the three thousand that day, repent and believe. |
    |